FLM films - My Webpage

2003-04-21 09:57:03-07:00 - Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Fylmfan@aol.com)


Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now?

2003-04-21 09:57:03-07:00 - Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Fylmfan@aol.com)


Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now?

2003-04-21 17:03:48-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (jmc247@cornell.edu)


Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing lately.

2003-04-21 17:03:48-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (jmc247@cornell.edu)


Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing lately.

2003-04-22 00:30:10+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television >From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) >Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message >news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious to me... since he >>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? Rose between sigs

2003-04-22 00:30:10+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television >From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) >Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message >news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious to me... since he >>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? Rose between sigs

2003-04-22 08:37:19+02:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (ankhor <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com>)


"Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > There on horrible terms, So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > I thought that would be obvious since he > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > them input on Firefly, hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > it went down the drain (the ratings were > terrible), What was the slot they put it in? > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > the failure. So do I, for the series is excellent. > If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. I would like to get rid of Fox, they use commercial money, which you pay everytime you buy advertised goods, and don`t care about the viewer. > He > isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > lately. well, that happens with shows that run for a longer time, unless they are soaps.

2003-04-22 08:37:19+02:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (ankhor <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com>)


"Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > There on horrible terms, So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > I thought that would be obvious since he > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > them input on Firefly, hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > it went down the drain (the ratings were > terrible), What was the slot they put it in? > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > the failure. So do I, for the series is excellent. > If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. I would like to get rid of Fox, they use commercial money, which you pay everytime you buy advertised goods, and don`t care about the viewer. > He > isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > lately. well, that happens with shows that run for a longer time, unless they are soaps.

2003-04-22 10:23:53-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Morpheus <carterr@miskatonic.edu>)


"higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > Rose wrote: > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > >> > >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >> > >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > > to me... > > > > since he > >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > >>them input on Firefly, > > > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? > > I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day > and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" > from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's > about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the > producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that > makes matters worse. > Considering that the suggestions would focus exclusively on ways to boost the ratings without a thought to series quality (i.e., giving the cyclops girl a bigger bustline), the producer who actually cares about the quality of the show would probably be better off ignoring them. .

2003-04-22 10:23:53-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Morpheus <carterr@miskatonic.edu>)


"higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > Rose wrote: > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > >> > >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >> > >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > > to me... > > > > since he > >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > >>them input on Firefly, > > > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? > > I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day > and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" > from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's > about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the > producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that > makes matters worse. > Considering that the suggestions would focus exclusively on ways to boost the ratings without a thought to series quality (i.e., giving the cyclops girl a bigger bustline), the producer who actually cares about the quality of the show would probably be better off ignoring them. .

2003-04-22 10:49:43-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (mlgmoore@yahoo.com)


"ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > > > There on horrible terms, > > So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > > > I thought that would be obvious since he > > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > them input on Firefly, > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not oranges? When you take someone's money, you give them input. You want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. > > > it went down the drain (the ratings were terrible), > > What was the slot they put it in? > The one that X-Files was a big success in. An hour before John Doe, that in an even worse timeslot got about double the ratings. > > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > > the failure. > > So do I, for the series is excellent. Well, many of us thought it was full of cliched characters and writing. And as the ratings consistently went down in the second half hour, a lot of people were tuning in and not finding exellence. > > > If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. > > I would like to get rid of Fox, they use commercial money, which > you pay everytime you buy advertised goods, and don`t care about > the viewer. And exactly what network do you think does? Fox has taken some chances on some unlikely shows, The Simpson, King of the Hill, 24, Malcolm in the Middle, and I would miss those very much and while I dislike the When Good Pets Go Bad style of programming, I can't think of any network that's given me interesting programming over the last ten years. > > > He isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > > lately. > > well, that happens with shows that run for a longer time, unless they are > soaps. The Simpsons are getting their best ratings ever, L&O is doing very well. Plenty more examples of shows that when the quality stayed, the ratings stayed.

2003-04-22 10:49:43-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (mlgmoore@yahoo.com)


"ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > > > There on horrible terms, > > So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > > > I thought that would be obvious since he > > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > them input on Firefly, > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not oranges? When you take someone's money, you give them input. You want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. > > > it went down the drain (the ratings were terrible), > > What was the slot they put it in? > The one that X-Files was a big success in. An hour before John Doe, that in an even worse timeslot got about double the ratings. > > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > > the failure. > > So do I, for the series is excellent. Well, many of us thought it was full of cliched characters and writing. And as the ratings consistently went down in the second half hour, a lot of people were tuning in and not finding exellence. > > > If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. > > I would like to get rid of Fox, they use commercial money, which > you pay everytime you buy advertised goods, and don`t care about > the viewer. And exactly what network do you think does? Fox has taken some chances on some unlikely shows, The Simpson, King of the Hill, 24, Malcolm in the Middle, and I would miss those very much and while I dislike the When Good Pets Go Bad style of programming, I can't think of any network that's given me interesting programming over the last ten years. > > > He isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > > lately. > > well, that happens with shows that run for a longer time, unless they are > soaps. The Simpsons are getting their best ratings ever, L&O is doing very well. Plenty more examples of shows that when the quality stayed, the ratings stayed.

2003-04-22 10:58:17-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (himiko@animail.net)


"Morpheus" <carterr@miskatonic.edu> wrote in message news:<4gcpa.5061$945.14537@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>... > "higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > > Rose wrote: > > > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > > >> > > >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > > >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > >> > > >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > > > > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > > > to me... > > > > > > since he > > >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > >>them input on Firefly, > > > > > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? > > > > I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day > > and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" > > from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's > > about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the > > producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that > > makes matters worse. > > > Considering that the suggestions would focus exclusively on ways to boost > the ratings without a thought to series quality (i.e., giving the cyclops > girl a bigger bustline), the producer who actually cares about the quality > of the show would probably be better off ignoring them. You need to differentiate between producers. The word is used very loosely and there are all kinds. ME writers including Joss are regularly listed as different kinds of producers. The Kuzuis and Sanddollar which have had nothing to do with the show but were involved in the movie are listed as producers. Sometimes studio CEOs are also listed as producers. I think a more meaningful distinction in the entertainment industry is between the business side of things and the artistic side. It's when the business side starts micromanaging the writers, the casting, the direction, or any other aspect of the artistic side that things go very, very wrong. The worst case I ever saw was Earth Final Conflict where Tribune (same wonderful folks who wrecked what little was good about Andromeda) execs started dictating everything from how many minutes should be devoted to action rather than talking, to the age of the characters...this involved killing off almost all the original cast and replacing them with the young and busty. All this, of course, was designed to attract the 14-34 male demographic prized by sponsors so as to make EFC a better sell. It wound up attracting no one, not even males aged 14-34 who, contrary to the belief of Tribune, aren't quite that stupid, and by the end they could hardly give the show away. Some suggestions from the business side or even the sponsors aren't so bad. I seem to recall reading that it was a note from Kotex that suggested Buffy's purse should contain a tampon. It wasn't just product placement; the Kotex folks felt this would show that their product is OK for even young girls (I.E. virgins) who want/need to be active all month. It was a small suggestion and didn't affect the plot or the character development. Also, ME implemented it brilliantly, and the expression on Xander's face when he realized what it was was priceless. But writers need to be able to say no if they feel that a suggestion is just totally out of the spirit of the show and impossible to implement. They do have that right. Joss used it when he refused to make Firefly more action and less talk. Unfortunately, the business side has the right to withdraw funds from writers who exercise this right, and they did. Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor can I think of any way to cover it. himiko

2003-04-22 10:58:17-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (himiko@animail.net)


"Morpheus" <carterr@miskatonic.edu> wrote in message news:<4gcpa.5061$945.14537@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>... > "higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > > Rose wrote: > > > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > > >> > > >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > > >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > >> > > >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > > > > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > > > to me... > > > > > > since he > > >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > >>them input on Firefly, > > > > > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? > > > > I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day > > and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" > > from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's > > about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the > > producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that > > makes matters worse. > > > Considering that the suggestions would focus exclusively on ways to boost > the ratings without a thought to series quality (i.e., giving the cyclops > girl a bigger bustline), the producer who actually cares about the quality > of the show would probably be better off ignoring them. You need to differentiate between producers. The word is used very loosely and there are all kinds. ME writers including Joss are regularly listed as different kinds of producers. The Kuzuis and Sanddollar which have had nothing to do with the show but were involved in the movie are listed as producers. Sometimes studio CEOs are also listed as producers. I think a more meaningful distinction in the entertainment industry is between the business side of things and the artistic side. It's when the business side starts micromanaging the writers, the casting, the direction, or any other aspect of the artistic side that things go very, very wrong. The worst case I ever saw was Earth Final Conflict where Tribune (same wonderful folks who wrecked what little was good about Andromeda) execs started dictating everything from how many minutes should be devoted to action rather than talking, to the age of the characters...this involved killing off almost all the original cast and replacing them with the young and busty. All this, of course, was designed to attract the 14-34 male demographic prized by sponsors so as to make EFC a better sell. It wound up attracting no one, not even males aged 14-34 who, contrary to the belief of Tribune, aren't quite that stupid, and by the end they could hardly give the show away. Some suggestions from the business side or even the sponsors aren't so bad. I seem to recall reading that it was a note from Kotex that suggested Buffy's purse should contain a tampon. It wasn't just product placement; the Kotex folks felt this would show that their product is OK for even young girls (I.E. virgins) who want/need to be active all month. It was a small suggestion and didn't affect the plot or the character development. Also, ME implemented it brilliantly, and the expression on Xander's face when he realized what it was was priceless. But writers need to be able to say no if they feel that a suggestion is just totally out of the spirit of the show and impossible to implement. They do have that right. Joss used it when he refused to make Firefly more action and less talk. Unfortunately, the business side has the right to withdraw funds from writers who exercise this right, and they did. Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor can I think of any way to cover it. himiko

2003-04-22 11:42:03+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (higgy <higgyslacker@hotmail.com>)


Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> >> >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? >> >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > to me... > > since he >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >>them input on Firefly, > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that makes matters worse. Dave.

2003-04-22 11:42:03+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (higgy <higgyslacker@hotmail.com>)


Rose wrote: >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> >> >>Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message >>news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >>> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >>> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? >> >>There on horrible terms, I thought that >would be obvious > > Since I don't work for Fox's accounting firm it's really not obvious > to me... > > since he >>>wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >>them input on Firefly, > > Do producers usually give the studio input? What is the custom? I was watching the DVD commentary on a Futurama episode the other day and Matt Groanig (I think) mentioned something about getting "notes" from the studio (also Fox) after each ep was made. I guess mostly it's about ratings, but if they're bad and the studio doesn't think the producer has been listening to their suggestions, then I guess that makes matters worse. Dave.

2003-04-22 15:28:50-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (himiko@animail.net)


mlgmoore@yahoo.com (MLGM) wrote in message news:<75f34eb.0304220949.64b26a08@posting.google.com>... > "ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > > Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of > money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? Not if they have any sense. Why not? Because they almost always screw it up. > So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever > food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not > oranges? Wrong analogy. It's more like a grocer who buys the apples and feels this gives her the authority to tell the grower how to grow despite the fact that s/he knows diddley about apple trees, having spent her/his time learning how to manage a grocery store. Her/his advice is likely to be off. E.G., s/he may tell the growers to produce the apples in December because that's when people want apples and there are few available. Not a tragedy if s/he has the sense to listen when the growers explain why you don't/can't harvest apples in Dec., but what if s/he refuses to listen? And what if the growers are desparate enough to try please in this way, even knowing it can't work? That's the case in the entertainment industry where most writers are just that desparate for a chance. Smart entertainment execs understand this and mostly butt out, sticking to the stuff they know. They try to find good writers and then trust said good writers to practice their craft. Same with all other aspects of the artistic side of the business. Unfortunately, few entertainment industry types are smart. There seems to be something about art that leads every souped up MBA and CPA to think s/he could do it better. They are wrong and most of what's on TV proves that...over and over and over again. > When you take someone's money, you give them input. You > want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. Wrong. When you rely on someone's money, you give them input. Unfortunately, the nature of TV is that you have to rely on funding and distribution. Authors of books have a few more options. This isn't a legal thing. It's a question of both parties getting a decent quality product. For the execs, this means understanding that sometimes getting your own way means losing. For the artists, this means understanding that sometimes saying no and losing your funding means winning. > > > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > > > the failure. > > > > So do I, for the series is excellent. So did I, but the best was the 2 part introduction which the Fox execs refused to let Joss use as the introduction. They said it was too talky and asked for more action. Joss responded with his version of "The Great Train Robbery." I don't think the Fox execs knew enough about film history to realize he'd insulted them. But TGTR wasn't a good introduction to the series. The original intro was. By refusing to let the artists make this artistic decision based on their training as artists, the execs shot everyone in the foot, themselves included. himiko

2003-04-22 15:28:50-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (himiko@animail.net)


mlgmoore@yahoo.com (MLGM) wrote in message news:<75f34eb.0304220949.64b26a08@posting.google.com>... > "ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > > Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of > money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? Not if they have any sense. Why not? Because they almost always screw it up. > So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever > food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not > oranges? Wrong analogy. It's more like a grocer who buys the apples and feels this gives her the authority to tell the grower how to grow despite the fact that s/he knows diddley about apple trees, having spent her/his time learning how to manage a grocery store. Her/his advice is likely to be off. E.G., s/he may tell the growers to produce the apples in December because that's when people want apples and there are few available. Not a tragedy if s/he has the sense to listen when the growers explain why you don't/can't harvest apples in Dec., but what if s/he refuses to listen? And what if the growers are desparate enough to try please in this way, even knowing it can't work? That's the case in the entertainment industry where most writers are just that desparate for a chance. Smart entertainment execs understand this and mostly butt out, sticking to the stuff they know. They try to find good writers and then trust said good writers to practice their craft. Same with all other aspects of the artistic side of the business. Unfortunately, few entertainment industry types are smart. There seems to be something about art that leads every souped up MBA and CPA to think s/he could do it better. They are wrong and most of what's on TV proves that...over and over and over again. > When you take someone's money, you give them input. You > want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. Wrong. When you rely on someone's money, you give them input. Unfortunately, the nature of TV is that you have to rely on funding and distribution. Authors of books have a few more options. This isn't a legal thing. It's a question of both parties getting a decent quality product. For the execs, this means understanding that sometimes getting your own way means losing. For the artists, this means understanding that sometimes saying no and losing your funding means winning. > > > Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > > > the failure. > > > > So do I, for the series is excellent. So did I, but the best was the 2 part introduction which the Fox execs refused to let Joss use as the introduction. They said it was too talky and asked for more action. Joss responded with his version of "The Great Train Robbery." I don't think the Fox execs knew enough about film history to realize he'd insulted them. But TGTR wasn't a good introduction to the series. The original intro was. By refusing to let the artists make this artistic decision based on their training as artists, the execs shot everyone in the foot, themselves included. himiko

2003-04-22 15:40:25+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com>, Caesar <jmc247@cornell.edu> wrote: > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were > terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He > isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > lately. And you base your 'facts' on what insider knowledge. The facts of the case are that Fox network has a track record for not taking risks on 'cult' shows anymore. X-Files was the last time they did. They might be willing to give a show a second season if it has the right names attached (ie, Dark Angel and James Cameron) but unless the ratings are stellar, it won't go any farther. Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night which is the worst night for tv shows. There was never anything said about creative control. The studios rarely have or ask for it over and above the most general points. Mostly it's the Network that makes comments and again that is general. Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open it up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new headquarters maybe. More action, less overwhelming drama" and so on. the Big Guys nod yes or no. Chances are it was a yes but that's the kind of changes that will attract new audience members because they won't be so confused about who was sleeping with whom and all that. plus the lighter mood and lack of sex all over the place means that the younger teen audience won't automatically get the plug pulled by the parents. Plus now that we'd had the character development time, ME can get to the show they originally started with (the more MOTW type show from early season one). the guys at Fox and at the WB will love that.

2003-04-22 15:40:25+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com>, Caesar <jmc247@cornell.edu> wrote: > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were > terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for > the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He > isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing > lately. And you base your 'facts' on what insider knowledge. The facts of the case are that Fox network has a track record for not taking risks on 'cult' shows anymore. X-Files was the last time they did. They might be willing to give a show a second season if it has the right names attached (ie, Dark Angel and James Cameron) but unless the ratings are stellar, it won't go any farther. Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night which is the worst night for tv shows. There was never anything said about creative control. The studios rarely have or ask for it over and above the most general points. Mostly it's the Network that makes comments and again that is general. Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open it up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new headquarters maybe. More action, less overwhelming drama" and so on. the Big Guys nod yes or no. Chances are it was a yes but that's the kind of changes that will attract new audience members because they won't be so confused about who was sleeping with whom and all that. plus the lighter mood and lack of sex all over the place means that the younger teen audience won't automatically get the plug pulled by the parents. Plus now that we'd had the character development time, ME can get to the show they originally started with (the more MOTW type show from early season one). the guys at Fox and at the WB will love that.

2003-04-22 17:35:50-05:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <75f34eb.0304220949.64b26a08@posting.google.com>, mlgmoore@yahoo.com (MLGM) wrote: > "ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > > news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > > > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > > > > > There on horrible terms, > > > > So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > > > > > I thought that would be obvious since he > > > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > > them input on Firefly, > > > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > > Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of > money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? > So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever > food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not > oranges? When you take someone's money, you give them input. You > want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. If they didn't want what Joss was selling they shouldn't have bought his product... regardless of the amount of money they gave him. Using your example if I want a pear I shouldn't be mad that an apple grower gives me an apple since that what apple growers do. If they didn't like the shows concept, which seems likely since they rejected the pilot, they shouldn't have kept on ordering shows. But once they ordered the shows they had a responsibility, IMHO, to make a good faith effort to promote it.

2003-04-22 17:35:50-05:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <75f34eb.0304220949.64b26a08@posting.google.com>, mlgmoore@yahoo.com (MLGM) wrote: > "ankhor" <im4fr*remove*@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<3ea4e2fc$0$49102$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>... > > "Caesar" <jmc247@cornell.edu> schreef in bericht > > news:5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com... > > > Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message > > news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... > > > > Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, > > > > bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > > > > > > There on horrible terms, > > > > So is fox with me now, but they don`t know it ;7) > > > > > I thought that would be obvious since he > > > wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give > > > them input on Firefly, > > > > hooray, they shouldn`t be messing with artistic freedoms. > > Umm, let me get this straight, a studio gives someone lots and lots of > money and you don't think they should have an input on the product? > So you just give the grocery store money and they give you whatever > food they feel like? You shouldn't get to decide you want apples not > oranges? When you take someone's money, you give them input. You > want artistic freedom, fund it yourself. If they didn't want what Joss was selling they shouldn't have bought his product... regardless of the amount of money they gave him. Using your example if I want a pear I shouldn't be mad that an apple grower gives me an apple since that what apple growers do. If they didn't like the shows concept, which seems likely since they rejected the pilot, they shouldn't have kept on ordering shows. But once they ordered the shows they had a responsibility, IMHO, to make a good faith effort to promote it.

2003-04-22 20:14:13+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (T'h'a'd'd'e'u's L O'l'c'z'y'k <o>, l, c, z, y, k@interaccess.com)


On 21 Apr 2003 17:03:48 -0700, jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) wrote: >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he >wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were >terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for >the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He >isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing >lately. I look at David E Kelley, who hasn't written a show that hasn't fizzled badly by the end of season 2 ( the Practice being the one exception, it took longer to fizzle ), and I have to wonder what his status is. Joss wrote one show that has been very strong ( Buffy ) for a long time. He wrote another show that has been moderately strong ( Angel ) for some time. I think Angel is still strong, Buffy is just dieing from a long run where the weight is pulling down the show. TO me it would seem that Joss be the one with the stronger favor among networks.

2003-04-22 20:14:13+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (T'h'a'd'd'e'u's L O'l'c'z'y'k <o>, l, c, z, y, k@interaccess.com)


On 21 Apr 2003 17:03:48 -0700, jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) wrote: >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he >wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were >terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for >the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He >isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing >lately. I look at David E Kelley, who hasn't written a show that hasn't fizzled badly by the end of season 2 ( the Practice being the one exception, it took longer to fizzle ), and I have to wonder what his status is. Joss wrote one show that has been very strong ( Buffy ) for a long time. He wrote another show that has been moderately strong ( Angel ) for some time. I think Angel is still strong, Buffy is just dieing from a long run where the weight is pulling down the show. TO me it would seem that Joss be the one with the stronger favor among networks.

2003-04-22 21:45:47-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304220958.e99b539@posting.google.com... > "Morpheus" <carterr@miskatonic.edu> wrote in message news:<4gcpa.5061$945.14537@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>... > > "higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Rose wrote: > > > > > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > > > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > > > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > > > >> > > Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of > speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor > can I think of any way to cover it. > You've got that right. Money talks and everyone listens. I think it's an absolute hoot that a couple of billion in American dollars was found stashed in Baghdad. In the easy to carry four million per box size, no less. Americans might be the evil infidel, but U.S. currency is every bit as good as God in Muslim countries. Now I want to see them squeeze their camels through the eye of a needle. -- Shannon Spike: "We're bringing Mother, of course. I think you'll like her." Druscilla: "Do you mean to eat?"

2003-04-22 21:45:47-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304220958.e99b539@posting.google.com... > "Morpheus" <carterr@miskatonic.edu> wrote in message news:<4gcpa.5061$945.14537@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>... > > "higgy" <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b839qb$sia$4@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Rose wrote: > > > > > > >>Subject: Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television > > > >>From: jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) > > > >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > > >>Message-id: <5748693a.0304211603.3cd8c72f@posting.google.com> > > > >> > > Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of > speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor > can I think of any way to cover it. > You've got that right. Money talks and everyone listens. I think it's an absolute hoot that a couple of billion in American dollars was found stashed in Baghdad. In the easy to carry four million per box size, no less. Americans might be the evil infidel, but U.S. currency is every bit as good as God in Muslim countries. Now I want to see them squeeze their camels through the eye of a needle. -- Shannon Spike: "We're bringing Mother, of course. I think you'll like her." Druscilla: "Do you mean to eat?"

2003-04-22 23:12:45+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, himiko@animail.net wrote in article <c7902983.0304221428.d111884@posting.google.com>... [elided] > > So did I, but the best was the 2 part introduction which the Fox execs > refused to let Joss use as the introduction. They said it was too > talky and asked for more action. Joss responded with his version of > "The Great Train Robbery." I don't think the Fox execs knew enough > about film history to realize he'd insulted them. But TGTR wasn't a > good introduction to the series. The original intro was. By refusing > to let the artists make this artistic decision based on their training > as artists, the execs shot everyone in the foot, themselves included. > > himiko > I guess I do not know as much film history as I thought I did. <em>The Great Train Robbery</em> has been made and remade several times. The first was made at the beginning of the twentieth century and it was one of the first thrilling action films. Which one would have been insulting to the Fox network executives and why? Or was the fact that he remade a classic your point? -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-22 23:12:45+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, himiko@animail.net wrote in article <c7902983.0304221428.d111884@posting.google.com>... [elided] > > So did I, but the best was the 2 part introduction which the Fox execs > refused to let Joss use as the introduction. They said it was too > talky and asked for more action. Joss responded with his version of > "The Great Train Robbery." I don't think the Fox execs knew enough > about film history to realize he'd insulted them. But TGTR wasn't a > good introduction to the series. The original intro was. By refusing > to let the artists make this artistic decision based on their training > as artists, the execs shot everyone in the foot, themselves included. > > himiko > I guess I do not know as much film history as I thought I did. <em>The Great Train Robbery</em> has been made and remade several times. The first was made at the beginning of the twentieth century and it was one of the first thrilling action films. Which one would have been insulting to the Fox network executives and why? Or was the fact that he remade a classic your point? -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-05-06 15:25:50-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (DM <danmar@igs.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:40:25 GMT, PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote: > >Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed >out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting >up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't >return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the >second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night >which is the worst night for tv shows. Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? For what it's worth I only watched two episodes and I thought they were supremely boring. I dont understand how someone who came up with Buffy the Vampire Slayer could come up with this mediocre attempt at entertainment. Maybe Joss has had his fifteen minutes. And if he has he's got nothing to be ashamed of except maybe for abandoning his baby to the wolves. >Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss >and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the >faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next >season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the >same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but >it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open >it >up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new I like Angel; the show and the character. This season started with a bang (introducing a sexy new character) and stayed pretty exciting until Jasmine. But I wouldnt mind seeing it lighten up (the devastation at Wolfram and Hart was pretty gruesome). There's already so much desperation in our daily lives that seeing more fabricated for TV is just incomprehensible to me. I can no longer believe television viewers are really looking for that. Let's hope that the death of Buffy and the swatting of Firefly will encourage Joss to become more involved with Angel. I'm sure he can improve it - the Buffyverse seems to be his best creative booster. I'd also like to see Fred and Lorne (and Connor if they are thinking of keeping him so stupid) dropped from the show. Dan -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-05-06 15:25:50-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (DM <danmar@igs.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:40:25 GMT, PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> wrote: > >Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed >out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting >up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't >return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the >second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night >which is the worst night for tv shows. Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? For what it's worth I only watched two episodes and I thought they were supremely boring. I dont understand how someone who came up with Buffy the Vampire Slayer could come up with this mediocre attempt at entertainment. Maybe Joss has had his fifteen minutes. And if he has he's got nothing to be ashamed of except maybe for abandoning his baby to the wolves. >Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss >and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the >faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next >season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the >same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but >it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open >it >up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new I like Angel; the show and the character. This season started with a bang (introducing a sexy new character) and stayed pretty exciting until Jasmine. But I wouldnt mind seeing it lighten up (the devastation at Wolfram and Hart was pretty gruesome). There's already so much desperation in our daily lives that seeing more fabricated for TV is just incomprehensible to me. I can no longer believe television viewers are really looking for that. Let's hope that the death of Buffy and the swatting of Firefly will encourage Joss to become more involved with Angel. I'm sure he can improve it - the Buffyverse seems to be his best creative booster. I'd also like to see Fred and Lorne (and Connor if they are thinking of keeping him so stupid) dropped from the show. Dan -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-05-06 21:25:43+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (X <xanophile@hotpop.com>)


DM wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:40:25 GMT, PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> > wrote: > > >>Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed >>out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting >>up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't >>return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the >>second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night >>which is the worst night for tv shows. > > > Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. > How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining > about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? > > For what it's worth I only watched two episodes and I thought they > were supremely boring. I dont understand how someone who came up with > Buffy the Vampire Slayer could come up with this mediocre attempt at > entertainment. Maybe Joss has had his fifteen minutes. And if he has > he's got nothing to be ashamed of except maybe for abandoning his baby > to the wolves. > > >>Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss >>and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the >>faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next >>season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the >>same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but >>it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open >it >>up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new > > > I like Angel; the show and the character. This season started with a > bang (introducing a sexy new character) and stayed pretty exciting > until Jasmine. But I wouldnt mind seeing it lighten up (the > devastation at Wolfram and Hart was pretty gruesome). There's already > so much desperation in our daily lives that seeing more fabricated for > TV is just incomprehensible to me. I can no longer believe television > viewers are really looking for that. > > Let's hope that the death of Buffy and the swatting of Firefly will > encourage Joss to become more involved with Angel. I'm sure he can > improve it - the Buffyverse seems to be his best creative booster. > > I'd also like to see Fred and Lorne (and Connor if they are thinking > of keeping him so stupid) dropped from the show. > > Dan > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple.

2003-05-06 21:25:43+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (X <xanophile@hotpop.com>)


DM wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:40:25 GMT, PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net> > wrote: > > >>Also, part of the failure for Firefly was FoxTVs fault. As Joss pointed >>out, they refused to air the Pilot that did the better job of setting >>up the story, which left a lot of viewers so confused that they didn't >>return (a safe assumption based on the massive drop in ratings for the >>second ep). And more importantly, they debuted the show on Friday night >>which is the worst night for tv shows. > > > Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. > How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining > about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? > > For what it's worth I only watched two episodes and I thought they > were supremely boring. I dont understand how someone who came up with > Buffy the Vampire Slayer could come up with this mediocre attempt at > entertainment. Maybe Joss has had his fifteen minutes. And if he has > he's got nothing to be ashamed of except maybe for abandoning his baby > to the wolves. > > >>Take Angel for example. Fox and the WB likely made a comment to Joss >>and David about how they are proud of the constant ratings and the >>faithful fans but they really want to see the numbers go up some next >>season. Joss and David came back with "We get yeah. We're thinking the >>same thing. This season's sturm and drang was necessary story wise but >>it's not going to be the constant mood for the show. We want to open >it >>up, lighten things a bit. Change things up. We're thinking new > > > I like Angel; the show and the character. This season started with a > bang (introducing a sexy new character) and stayed pretty exciting > until Jasmine. But I wouldnt mind seeing it lighten up (the > devastation at Wolfram and Hart was pretty gruesome). There's already > so much desperation in our daily lives that seeing more fabricated for > TV is just incomprehensible to me. I can no longer believe television > viewers are really looking for that. > > Let's hope that the death of Buffy and the swatting of Firefly will > encourage Joss to become more involved with Angel. I'm sure he can > improve it - the Buffyverse seems to be his best creative booster. > > I'd also like to see Fred and Lorne (and Connor if they are thinking > of keeping him so stupid) dropped from the show. > > Dan > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple.

2003-05-06 21:30:32+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@rogers.com>)


X wrote: > > > firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. > I liked it. I miss it. I want it back. (Is that plain and simple enough?) Jane -- Read my Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiction at http://members.rogers.com/jdavitt01/index.html http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=231516

2003-05-06 21:30:32+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@rogers.com>)


X wrote: > > > firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. > I liked it. I miss it. I want it back. (Is that plain and simple enough?) Jane -- Read my Buffy the Vampire Slayer fiction at http://members.rogers.com/jdavitt01/index.html http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=231516

2003-05-07 07:56:14-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 06 May 2003 15:25:50 -0400, DM <danmar@igs.net> wrote: >Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. >How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining >about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? They justify it by being complete asshole morons who wouldn't know a good television show if it came up, kissed them square on the ass and said "Hi, I'm a good television show!"

2003-05-07 07:56:14-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 06 May 2003 15:25:50 -0400, DM <danmar@igs.net> wrote: >Someone said that Joss wasted millions on Firefly adn Fox was pissed. >How do they reconcile fucking the series that way and complaining >about wasting money on an unsuccessful series? Or do they even bother? They justify it by being complete asshole morons who wouldn't know a good television show if it came up, kissed them square on the ass and said "Hi, I'm a good television show!"

2003-05-07 07:56:53-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 06 May 2003 21:25:43 GMT, X <xanophile@hotpop.com> wrote: >firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. Sez you. Thousands of others think decidedly differently.

2003-05-07 07:56:53-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 06 May 2003 21:25:43 GMT, X <xanophile@hotpop.com> wrote: >firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. Sez you. Thousands of others think decidedly differently.

2003-05-07 19:27:30+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Brian Henderson <B.L.Henderson@SPAMFREE.verizon.net>)


On Wed, 07 May 2003 07:56:53 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Tue, 06 May 2003 21:25:43 GMT, X <xanophile@hotpop.com> wrote: >>firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. >Sez you. Thousands of others think decidedly differently. Well, since thousands don't mean a damn thing in television (you need millions), who cares?

2003-05-07 19:27:30+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Brian Henderson <B.L.Henderson@SPAMFREE.verizon.net>)


On Wed, 07 May 2003 07:56:53 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Tue, 06 May 2003 21:25:43 GMT, X <xanophile@hotpop.com> wrote: >>firefly got toasted cause it sucked. plain and simple. >Sez you. Thousands of others think decidedly differently. Well, since thousands don't mean a damn thing in television (you need millions), who cares?

2003-05-07 23:23:12-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (howie_wang@hotmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0304220958.e99b539@posting.google.com>... > But writers need to be able to say no if they feel that a suggestion > is just totally out of the spirit of the show and impossible to > implement. They do have that right. Joss used it when he refused to > make Firefly more action and less talk. Unfortunately, the business > side has the right to withdraw funds from writers who exercise this > right, and they did. > > Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of > speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor > can I think of any way to cover it. Well, this might be a bit of an exaggeration, although I can see where you're coming from. The constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to make their own tv show the way they want it. Joss can pretty much say whatever he wants and not get arrested. I do think that capitalism can make a bad environment for creative expression, but I think a large part of the blame has to go to the masses. Most people just do not want to be challenged at all so the studios naturally aim for the lowest common denominator, and what you end up with is usually a piece of crap. But I think it kind of goes in cycles where you get the crap for a while. Then people get sick of it, and something new and good comes along and it's popular. Then everyone starts copying it again and it becomes stale and you're left with mostly crap again. I guess it's just a fact of life that most art and entertainment is junk. So you've got to hold on to the good things when they come along (which makes me sad that Buffy is going off the air). I'm not sure what other system besides capitalism could work though. Fundamentalism and fascism are out of the question for obvious reasons. Maybe having a government fund for arts and entertainment that would be presided over by coalitions of artists, but that sounds like the National Endowment for the Arts. With the NEA, you get the problem with angry taxpayers bitching about their taxes going to something they find offensive. I guess you could go for public donations like PBS, but I just don't see it making enough money to support a pretty big project. You might get enough to fund some documentaries, but it seems like funding something like Buffy or Firefly is probably too expensive. I always thought that technology was supposed to have a democratizing effect where the little guy can have a voice. Cheap digital cameras are allowing amateur filmmakers to do their own movies. CD burners and digital recording software allowing garage bands to produce their own albums. Of course the internet and things like weblogs allow writers to get a huge audience with very little cost. The big question though is now that you've created your masterpiece, how do you get people to check it out? I'm not sure what the nice answer to this is. I guess if it's just insanely good, people might hear about it by word of mouth (like what happened with the South Park original Xmas movie). This probably isn't going to happen that often though. So it seems like capitalism just wins out: find someone with money, get them to fund your project, they hype it for you to make money, but you might have to sell your soul in the process. Kind of depressing. Maybe for "problem" projects like Firefly, it really is the studios' fault. I wonder what the last time a movie or tv show was "saved" by the studio's brilliant input. Never? I don't know why networks do things like change times for a show and hide it away. They've hyped crappy shows before so why not hype a show that they think is crappy? Howie

2003-05-07 23:23:12-07:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (howie_wang@hotmail.com)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0304220958.e99b539@posting.google.com>... > But writers need to be able to say no if they feel that a suggestion > is just totally out of the spirit of the show and impossible to > implement. They do have that right. Joss used it when he refused to > make Firefly more action and less talk. Unfortunately, the business > side has the right to withdraw funds from writers who exercise this > right, and they did. > > Sometimes I think capitalism represents as much a threat to freedom of > speech as any government...and our constitution doesn't cover it, nor > can I think of any way to cover it. Well, this might be a bit of an exaggeration, although I can see where you're coming from. The constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to make their own tv show the way they want it. Joss can pretty much say whatever he wants and not get arrested. I do think that capitalism can make a bad environment for creative expression, but I think a large part of the blame has to go to the masses. Most people just do not want to be challenged at all so the studios naturally aim for the lowest common denominator, and what you end up with is usually a piece of crap. But I think it kind of goes in cycles where you get the crap for a while. Then people get sick of it, and something new and good comes along and it's popular. Then everyone starts copying it again and it becomes stale and you're left with mostly crap again. I guess it's just a fact of life that most art and entertainment is junk. So you've got to hold on to the good things when they come along (which makes me sad that Buffy is going off the air). I'm not sure what other system besides capitalism could work though. Fundamentalism and fascism are out of the question for obvious reasons. Maybe having a government fund for arts and entertainment that would be presided over by coalitions of artists, but that sounds like the National Endowment for the Arts. With the NEA, you get the problem with angry taxpayers bitching about their taxes going to something they find offensive. I guess you could go for public donations like PBS, but I just don't see it making enough money to support a pretty big project. You might get enough to fund some documentaries, but it seems like funding something like Buffy or Firefly is probably too expensive. I always thought that technology was supposed to have a democratizing effect where the little guy can have a voice. Cheap digital cameras are allowing amateur filmmakers to do their own movies. CD burners and digital recording software allowing garage bands to produce their own albums. Of course the internet and things like weblogs allow writers to get a huge audience with very little cost. The big question though is now that you've created your masterpiece, how do you get people to check it out? I'm not sure what the nice answer to this is. I guess if it's just insanely good, people might hear about it by word of mouth (like what happened with the South Park original Xmas movie). This probably isn't going to happen that often though. So it seems like capitalism just wins out: find someone with money, get them to fund your project, they hype it for you to make money, but you might have to sell your soul in the process. Kind of depressing. Maybe for "problem" projects like Firefly, it really is the studios' fault. I wonder what the last time a movie or tv show was "saved" by the studio's brilliant input. Never? I don't know why networks do things like change times for a show and hide it away. They've hyped crappy shows before so why not hype a show that they think is crappy? Howie

2003-05-08 02:51:00+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (hbond@nospam.com.au)


On 21 Apr 2003 17:03:48 -0700, jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) wrote: >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he >wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were >terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for >the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He >isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing >lately.

2003-05-08 02:51:00+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (hbond@nospam.com.au)


On 21 Apr 2003 17:03:48 -0700, jmc247@cornell.edu (Caesar) wrote: >Fylmfan@aol.com (Rose) wrote in message news:<99123730.0304210857.3fcae20e@posting.google.com>... >> Does anyone here know anything about whether Joss Whedon is on good, >> bad or indifferent terms with Fox TV right now? > >There on horrible terms, I thought that would be obvious since he >wasted tens of millions of dollars of their money and refused to give >them input on Firefly, it went down the drain (the ratings were >terrible), Fox pulled it off the air, and then Joss blamed them for >the failure. If I were them I would want to get rid of his ass. He >isn't worth it, especially with how Buffy and Angel have been doing >lately.

2003-05-08 04:03:48+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (cmento6653@aol.com)


FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times!

2003-05-08 04:03:48+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (cmento6653@aol.com)


FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times!

2003-05-08 15:26:01-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


CMento6653 wrote: > FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to > fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away > from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've > ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred > times! Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times!

2003-05-08 15:26:01-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


CMento6653 wrote: > FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to > fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away > from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've > ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred > times! Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times!

2003-05-08 22:24:07-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 08 May 2003 04:03:48 GMT, cmento6653@aol.com (CMento6653) wrote: >FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to >fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away >from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've >ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred >times! Hello, eat me. Thank you. Have a nice day. (tips hat)

2003-05-08 22:24:07-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 08 May 2003 04:03:48 GMT, cmento6653@aol.com (CMento6653) wrote: >FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to >fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away >from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've >ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred >times! Hello, eat me. Thank you. Have a nice day. (tips hat)

2003-05-09 06:26:50+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Brian Henderson <B.L.Henderson@SPAMFREE.verizon.net>)


On Thu, 08 May 2003 15:26:01 -0400, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >CMento6653 wrote: >> FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to >> fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away >> from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've >> ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred >> times! > >Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from >posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It >deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times! Well, if you've seen it a hundred times, then an awful lot of people thought Firefly sucked, didn't they?

2003-05-09 06:26:50+00:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Brian Henderson <B.L.Henderson@SPAMFREE.verizon.net>)


On Thu, 08 May 2003 15:26:01 -0400, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >CMento6653 wrote: >> FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to >> fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away >> from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've >> ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred >> times! > >Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from >posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It >deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times! Well, if you've seen it a hundred times, then an awful lot of people thought Firefly sucked, didn't they?

2003-05-09 16:41:50-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


Brian Henderson wrote: > On Thu, 08 May 2003 15:26:01 -0400, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > >CMento6653 wrote: > >> FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to > >> fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away > >> from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've > >> ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred > >> times! > > > >Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from > >posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It > >deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times! > > Well, if you've seen it a hundred times, then an awful lot of people > thought Firefly sucked, didn't they? A lot of awful people thought so.

2003-05-09 16:41:50-04:00 - Re: Question for Knowers: Joss Whedon and Fox Television - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


Brian Henderson wrote: > On Thu, 08 May 2003 15:26:01 -0400, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > >CMento6653 wrote: > >> FIREFLY sucked! What a dull show. How dumb. It just sucked! Joss, stick to > >> fantasy and horror. BTW get Ripper and the Buffy animated show going. Stay away > >> from sci fi. FIREFLY was the worst casted, worst written piece of boredom I've > >> ever seen. It deserved to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred > >> times! > > > >Your post sucked! What a dull post. How dumb. It just sucked! Stay away from > >posting. Your post was the worst written piece of boredom I've ever read. It > >deserves to die. It was not even original. I've seen it a hundred times! > > Well, if you've seen it a hundred times, then an awful lot of people > thought Firefly sucked, didn't they? A lot of awful people thought so.